Other Than the Killing Spree, He Was a Great Guy

Kathy of Birmingham Blues forwarded me this AP story about the Wisconsin sheriff's deputy, Tyler Peterson, who shot and killed six people at a party this weekend, seriously injured another, and then either killed himself or was killed during an exchange of gunfire with police. The story notes that, although the police "declined to provide details of the argument that preceded the shooting," Peterson's friend reports that Peterson "had gone to his ex-girlfriend's house hoping to patch up their relationship" and went on his murderous rampage when her friends began calling him a "worthless pig."

See how easy victim-blaming is? Just find a friend of the killer, who will be happy to suggest that six kids ranging in age from 14 to 20 wouldn't be dead if only they'd not assailed Peterson's manhood. And it gets better.

[Peterson's friend Mike Kegley] said Peterson came to his door about five hours after the rampage early Sunday and calmly told him what happened.

"He wasn't running around crazy or anything. He was very, very sorry for what he did," said Kegley, adding that he gave Peterson coffee and food and later made repeated calls to 911.

Well, that's very pertinent news. It's always important to hear what a great guy a violent killer is from his friends, family, and colleagues, just to drive home the impression that firing 30 rounds into his ex-girlfriend and her loud-mouthed, insolent pals with his AR-15 semi-automatic wasn't his fault; it was that dumb bitch, who not only wouldn't reconcile with him but mocked him, too. Because, otherwise, he was a great guy.

I've probably heard no fewer than a dozen different comedians riff on the old "he was such a nice guy; he was so quiet; he kept to himself" chestnut after some maniac loses his shit and goes on a shooting spree or 36 bodies are excavated from his basement-cum-catacomb. It's one of those cultural things of which we're all aware, and so it becomes "funny" merely by virtue of its universality. But that it's a concept with which we're all so intimately familiar speaks to the pernicious twin narratives of victim provocation (she made me do it/goaded me into it/was asking for it/wanted it) and "the dark side"—or "dark half" or "mean streak" or "evil streak" or "Jekyll and Hyde complex" or any one of a rather alarming number of euphemisms for the part of an otherwise Good Man who nonetheless does Very Bad Things.

Something has to set men off, you see. (The same is not true of women killers, for whom the narrative is that they are "psychos" who managed to manipulate people into thinking they were normal when they weren't out killing people, a dichotomy of explanations not dissimilar from the "deep hatred" double standard.) And, at its worst, the legend of the male killer's "dark side" seeks to excuse the male killer altogether by purporting that such ugliness is inherent in the male nature, that every man is capable of the same given the right (so to speak) circumstance.

Recall David Brooks' column "Virtues and Victims" about the association between rape and (no kidding) a loss of chivalry, in which he casually mourns the loss of general acceptance of the belief that "each of us had a godlike and a demonic side, and that decent people perpetually strengthened the muscles of their virtuous side in order to restrain the deathless sinner within." Back in the good old days, he notes, "[educators who … understood that when you concentrate young men, they have a tropism toward barbarism] cared less about academics than about instilling a formula for character building. The formula, then called chivalry, consisted first of manners, habits and self-imposed restraints to prevent the downward slide."

Well, lookee there. In one paragraph, he notes that people (although he means "men") each have an evil side capable of rape (and presumably murder), that men are innately barbarous, and that the only solution is chivalry, which, as I've noted before, is merely benevolent oppression—"In exchange for other inequalities that will be perpetuated against you to maintain our privilege, we'll protect you from the worst of our lot." In other words, if women vociferously challenge male privilege, you can't fault men for what they do in response.

And now we're back to "they called him a worthless pig."

I guess he showed them.

But, having proved himself both worthless pig and murderous scum, we are treated not to a comment on that obvious reality, but instead the analysis of his friend, who assures us he was sorry he killed those kids, even as he yet reminds us they did make fun of him.